===============================================
They are better than nothing. However, a good boxer or kickboxer will take these people out because of better training and principles of the arts.
===============================================
These generalizations do not help the cause. Just once I would like to see a thread discussing styles that does not categorize karate as purely a striking art. True, some karate styles do stress striking and kicking but there are also styles that are much more versatile and encompass close-in techniques... throws, take-downs, semi-grappling, pulling in, etc...
A point that is sometimes overlooked is that not all fighting styles should be classified as martial arts. Some excellent fighters who are very tough have nothing "martial" in their training. Many modern styles were developed for excellence in the ring. Some traditional styles were developed to be used on a battlefield against people trying to kill you. Comparisons between the two are not always productive.
A problem with some modern incarnations of the traditional arts is that they try to be something they are not and strive to encompass the sporting and competition aspects when they were originally devised to be used by warriors or by common people who needed to protect themselves against violent aggression. So when traditionalists do poorly in the ring a generalization is made that the style is ineffective. Sadly, the combative nature of the traditional styles is often underemphasized these days -- a result of the sickening political correctness that has crept into the martial arts community in the past couple of decades. Fortunately there are starting to develope pockets of resistance to this trend and an emphasis on practical effectiveness is starting to come to the forefront in many (not enough) traditional schools again. Some schools never lost it, but those who train with such a true martial emphasis tend to not make a lot of noise about it -- they just like to train.
When it comes to being well-rounded and able to adapt to various situations, I like to use a tree as a metaphore (I first heard this from someone else). Your primary style -- that which you spend most of your time training in -- should be like the trunk of the tree: strong and with deep roots. But it takes branches to complete the tree. Techniques and methods from other styles should not be avoided, but rather studied and considered for what they offer. Then what is gained should be added to your training in a way that allows it to naturally grow out of your main style like a branch of the tree - not as a clumsy add-on. So in this way, it really does boil down to the individual and what is invested in the training.
They are better than nothing. However, a good boxer or kickboxer will take these people out because of better training and principles of the arts.
===============================================
These generalizations do not help the cause. Just once I would like to see a thread discussing styles that does not categorize karate as purely a striking art. True, some karate styles do stress striking and kicking but there are also styles that are much more versatile and encompass close-in techniques... throws, take-downs, semi-grappling, pulling in, etc...
A point that is sometimes overlooked is that not all fighting styles should be classified as martial arts. Some excellent fighters who are very tough have nothing "martial" in their training. Many modern styles were developed for excellence in the ring. Some traditional styles were developed to be used on a battlefield against people trying to kill you. Comparisons between the two are not always productive.
A problem with some modern incarnations of the traditional arts is that they try to be something they are not and strive to encompass the sporting and competition aspects when they were originally devised to be used by warriors or by common people who needed to protect themselves against violent aggression. So when traditionalists do poorly in the ring a generalization is made that the style is ineffective. Sadly, the combative nature of the traditional styles is often underemphasized these days -- a result of the sickening political correctness that has crept into the martial arts community in the past couple of decades. Fortunately there are starting to develope pockets of resistance to this trend and an emphasis on practical effectiveness is starting to come to the forefront in many (not enough) traditional schools again. Some schools never lost it, but those who train with such a true martial emphasis tend to not make a lot of noise about it -- they just like to train.
When it comes to being well-rounded and able to adapt to various situations, I like to use a tree as a metaphore (I first heard this from someone else). Your primary style -- that which you spend most of your time training in -- should be like the trunk of the tree: strong and with deep roots. But it takes branches to complete the tree. Techniques and methods from other styles should not be avoided, but rather studied and considered for what they offer. Then what is gained should be added to your training in a way that allows it to naturally grow out of your main style like a branch of the tree - not as a clumsy add-on. So in this way, it really does boil down to the individual and what is invested in the training.
